| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Non-JVM VMNon-JVM VMPosted Nov 14, 2007 3:13 UTC (Wed) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)In reply to: Non-JVM VM by ncm Parent article: Dalvik: how Google routed around Sun's IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME (Betaversion)
Register machines and stack machines are equivalent and turing-complete. There is no difference in expressiveness between the architectures. Register designs are more popular because they're more amenable to optimization. It's easier to generate code to store a temporary that needs to be used more than once in a register than it is to arrange the stack so it's at the top at the right time.
(Log in to post comments)
Non-JVM VM Posted Nov 14, 2007 4:22 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Obviously. But a design incompatible with JVM may also implement instructions that JVM doesn't. As an example, CLR implements the tail-call optimization. Turing-completeness is meaningless at this level. (If you insist on nitpicking, I will point out that nobody has ever implemented a Turing-complete execution environment, and nobody ever will.)
|
|
||||||||||||